New Policy Discussion - **NO** Politics (& maybe Religion) in Sigs

First off, thanks to KnightWriter for re-opening this thread.

I am well aware of the fact that this is a privately owned site and that the mods are free to make any rules. However, if the mods want people to get involved and feel like they are valued, then users need to know that their opinion matters. Some of the moderators do not seem to understand some of the concerns expressed here. If you do not agree that this is a serious matter, fine. But dismissing arguments by calling them ?drama? is rude and un-necessary. This forum is for people to express views and opinions, please allow us to use it for that purpose

If the purpose of the new restriction is to prevent conflict, there are numerous other topics that would fall under this category, ex: Religion, Cannon Wars, and others I can?t think of at the moment (but I'll work on it).

From my perspective, this is a decision made for reasons that have not been fully explained (it there was an incident, what was it?, and does one incident merit this type of reaction), and does not seem to really fit the perceived potential harm.

Will this stop me from posting here? No. But my respect and general belief that that mods generally do a good job has gone down a notch. Bad form.

Dan and MrEmh, please take all personal issues to PM.

 

EDIT: Nevermind

 

Basically theres no reason to ban political sigs that couldn't be used as a reason to ban any discussion.

 

OK, I understand that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply on TF.N, but isn't expressing one's individuality an important part of posting on a message board in the first place


o]||||{ -------SaberSlinger-------

 

I'm curious about Vaderbait's sig too. If we're going to do away with controversial signatures, why don't we do away with signatures altogether? I'm sure pretty much anything somone puts down there is going to be found controversial by someone. The only bannings I know of about someone's sig (since I've been here) are Vaderbait and the guy with the KKK quote. If there are more, I'd like to know, since it seems otherwise that we're restricting everyone's signatures because of a few people.

 

I beleive Ethril was banned because of something in his sig, among other things.

 

if something in a sig can be offensive, then so can a thread in the Senate, which then would have to be locked & end the discussion. this policy really doesn't make any sense, & i find it to be hypocritcial to the point i made above.

 

Not got a problem with the rule at all. This is a STAR WARS board, and with that in mind, it's unusual that we have a Senate forum at all! Politics and religion are the the 2 things that cause more arguments than anything else (as this thread clearly proves) so I completely agree that political sigs are not appropriate because THAT IS NOT WHAT THESE BOARDS ARE ABOUT!!!

People's political sigs have caused complaints in the past, and for good reason. I am BY NO MEANS a fan of extreme 'political correctness' but a STAR WARS boards does NOT fall into that catagory. If you want to argue politics, go to a politics forum, or if you want to stay here, then use the Senate forum. I don't like other people's political and religious views thrust upon me which is why

a) I like going to a SW forum
b) I don't visit the senate

Just stop whining and move on!

 

Does someone's personal beliefs in their sig bother you that much?

It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head and making you believe anything, they're just expressing themselves.

 

halibut you have been here long enough to know there has always been debate over political and religious threads. They were allowed then disallowed then allowed then disallowed, finally the senate was created for such threads.

At that point the administration lost the ability to disallow religious or political messages because they were political or religious.

If they want to destroy the senate and ban political and religious discussion entirely, then they can say such sentiments aren't allowed in your sig.

Until then, my sig stands.

 

Ah yes, there, you can have the last word in this little problem we have here. Or not.

Telling somebody not to voice their opinion on a message board is flaming them. What right do you have as a regular user to tell me when to stop posting? You have none. Had I told you to shut up, I am not so sure that I would go unpunished, quite frankly.

Oh, and yes, that nifty PM feature! My, my... you could have used that initially to tell me to shut up instead of revealing my sock publically and telling me to shut up. I am not amused at all.

And about PB flaming others, are you telling me that you've never been banned for breaking the rules here? I believe I remember differently, although I could be wrong.


Oh yes, and back to the topic at hand! I do not agree with the administration on this issue. The bottom line is that if the opinion is not harmful or derogatory, then it should be allowed. Signatures should be reviewed on a case by case basis and general rules that regard .01% of the posting population should not be thrown around lightly.

If you want to argue politics, go to a politics forum, or if you want to stay here, then use the Senate forum. I don't like other people's political and religious views thrust upon me which is why...

Signatures are not arguing one way or another. They are simple summaries or statements of one's beliefs. And just because we have a Senate forum doesn't mean we should ban sigs with topics covered in that forum. If you use your logic, we could ban SW sigs because we have those forums already. And once again, an appropriate signature will not thrust anybody's views upon you; sigs that do indeed do that need to be removed.

 

edit: the Seante fourm does have it's value.

 

. . . If you don't like other people's views thrust on you, I advise you not to tell us what to do.

 

I agree with halibut 100%

I stay out of the senate because I think that stuff gets pretty old pretty quick (ironicaly that comes from a pols major ).

Its my choice not to go there, I don't have a chocie when it comes to other peoples sig.

As already stated multiple times this is a private board but even where the US constitution is concerned your first amendment right end where my nose begins.

I say good job, you want to go further with religious sigs, more power to you.

 

In regards to halibut's post:


What about people like me? I have maybe 10 posts that are outside of the JCC. I almost never go to the SW parts. Even if I had something political in my sig, it wouldn't bother anyone because nearly all of my posts are in the JCC. You wouldn't be affended because you never go to the Senate.

 

If you're offended by people's views and what they say, why come to talk with them?

 

You say you don't like having other people's views thrusted on you. But don't you see that by supporting this rule you are enforcing your personal views(your dislike of them expressing themselves in their sigs) on them?



Nite.

 

By your argument weezer I imagine seeing political bumper stickers makes you see red.

God(oops) only know how you'll survive come november.

To be honest, how many people here normally read sigs and how many skip over them with no more then a cursory glance?

 

But couldn't a lot of things be considered controversial? If someone puts "Greedo shooting first is the best thing that ever happened to mankind," and they never go to the OT boards, I can't argue that. All I can do is send them a PM saying that they're wrong. Now, if I'm not mistaken, couldn't you do this if someone has a religious or political statement in their sig that you don't agree with?

 

I agree with Dan's assessment of the signature situation.

 

Hi. If you want to share a lasting remark about politics or religion, buy a bumper sticker.

Is this new policy perfect? No. It's not even great. At least 90% of people here don't even bother reading others' signatures and even if they do, they probably don't care.

It's easy to forget that the JC doesn't function democratically. The people do have a say but the authority can do anything that they deem necessary on a whim. It's a tough decision whether to leave grey areas alone or to lose a few members, and since the JC is notoriously user-friendly, it doesn't take much thought to figure out what kind of decision was made this time.

 

By your argument weezer I imagine seeing political bumper stickers makes you see red.


Yeah some of them do actually, what should I do about it? Get out of my car and punch the guy? Pull up next to him and cuss him out?

I can't really change that. Here I can voice my opinion on why I think that it is a good idea.

 

I can't ever see the need for a political sig on the JC.

I would never have a political sig on the JC.

But, I believe that there should be enough freedom on the JC for you to have one, if you want it.

If the sig is trolling, then ban them for it, else LEAVE IT BE.

What's next? banning Anti-EU sigs? (Oops! Already been there..)

UKS

 

i agree w/ you, we should have the freedom here to have a political sig.

 

There is a big difference between bumper stickers and signatures. If someone has a bumper sticker that you don't like, there's not much you can do about it. If someone has a signature you don't like, you can voice your opinion to the user whose signature happens to offend you. This is a message board, where people are encouraged to discuss things. I think a political signature is the kind of thing that can start up some interesting debate. Look at the thread in the Senate titled "America is the Only Democracy Where Minority Rules". That was a signature that got someone banned, and yet we're having a nice interesting debate there. I just think that if someone's signature bothers you, for religious, political or other reasons, you can either ignore it or PM the person and talk to them about it. I don't find it any different than if someone were walking around with a T-shirt that said "America is the only democracy where minority rules". True, I may not agree with that statement, but I can ask that person about their shirt and possibly have a very interesting conversation. If I find it offensive, I can tell the person. But I'm not going to ask to have all political shirts banned. We didn't even have that in high school, land of the censorship.